Cyber Disobedience: Re://Presenting Online Anarchy

by Jeff Shantz

  From a critical perspective, the (mis)treatment of Chelsea Manning is not a surprising sequence of events. The wrongdoing revealed is in direct opposition to the government and to those who profit from war. This illustration is a straightforward example of how white-collar crime has pervaded various facets of capitalist culture as the government may empathize with those who fund wars. The exceptional dishonest and illegal behavior overseas has also been a justification for tightening up domestic laws in the United State; meanwhile, profiteers of war triumph from an untoward happenstance. However, a much more different picture is painted when a whistleblowers actions benefit the state. The case of Bradley Birkenfeld juxtaposes the features of Manning’s condition at many levels. In 2007, Birkenfeld revealed that banks in Switzerland were aiding 4,700 American clients in evading taxes amid the United States. Without fail, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal government were immediately paying attention to his insider knowledge. In the midst of further investigation, Birkenfeld was correct in his assumption. In September of 2012, Birkenfeld was awarded a generous $104 million dollar sum for his aid to the IRS and the American federal government (Kocieniewski 2012, n.p.). As luck would have it, he received this sum of money while serving a prison sentence for conspiracy to defraud the United States government. This instance highlights how a nations response will be contingent on whether or not the information is helpful or harmful to a legal regime. In Manning’s case, the information reveals exceptional wrongdoing on behalf of the government and causes potential for profiteers of war to lose a considerable sum of money (should the war desist). In the meantime, persons responsible for wrongdoing remain unpunished while the whistleblower is incarcerated without trial. On the other hand, Birkenfeld—a convicted fraudster—was rewarded the largest sum to a single whistleblower in the United States history (Gonzalez, 2012, n.p.).

  The contrasting treatment of Manning and Birkenfeld are two examples whereby reaction to dishonest and illegal behavior varied greatly and came about on an individual basis. Over the past decade, a much more communal force to expose harm has developed by using the technology, ideology and advocacy: the loosely affiliated hacker-activists, “Anonymous.” Anonymous is a non-violent resistance movement consisting of a global collective of autonomous individuals who adhere to three basic principles: do not attack the media, do not attack critical infrastructure, and work for justice and freedom (Anonymous 2012, n.p.). Essentially, the group serves as a chaotic non-partisan that is united by two uncomplicated ethics: information should be free and accessible. Over the past few years, some have revered Anonymous (or Anons) in their online and offline activism. Anonymous, however, does not hold any central agenda. For this reason, they engage in various forms of illegal activity, legal activist activity and newly characterized forms of civil disobedience that include but are not limited to: whistleblowing, exposing online pedophiles, revealing corporate corruption, publishing state secrecy, and really, brining any miniscule or large-scale phenomena to light. In other words, some Anonymous persons believe they are making transnational despotic regimes—across all states and cultures—public. One method of Anonymous action is exemplified through computer hacking and community activism, or as coined by Omega and referred to by many, “hacktivism” (Oxblood Ruffin 2004, n.p.). Today, some believe that Anonymous echoes an insurrectionary anarchist tone as they openly advocate to ending state ascendancy and tyranny at any cost (Schwartz 2012b, n.p.). Acquisition to Anonymous is easy: be “Anonymous” by evading personal acknowledgment for hacking and activism. As a classifying phrase, Anonymous engages in global protests around the world, corporate and governmental hacks, and advocate for change in society on a day-to-day basis. Anonymous, unlike previous forms of whistleblowing, is unique for a number of reasons.

  To start, the acts of whistleblowing are not accomplished on an individual basis. The acts are achieved through operative anonymity, either by wearing a Guy Fawkes mask in a real world protest, or by operating online through various mediums that ensure confidential data is not revealed. Secondly, the group discloses cases of illegal and dishonest behavior while simultaneously adopting an advocacy response. For example, by pointing the public in the direction of the wrongdoing and then proceeding to encourage protest through direct action achieves this feat of advocacy. This form of collective whistleblowing also juxtaposes Manning and Birkenfeld who chose to pass along the information but failed take an advocacy role. Although Manning may be an exception to this rule as it is nearly impossible to adopt this response while serving time behind bars. Nevertheless, Anonymous has remained a stoic supporter of Manning and has brought the case to the attention of the media by unceasingly discussing his mistreatment online (despite falling out with WikiLeaks). Thirdly, Anonymous does not often use any formal whistleblowing intermediary as a means to disclose cases of wrongdoing.

  In the past and present, members of Anonymous have provided information to groups like Wikileaks. Although daily operations of the collective pertain to more immediate distribution networks: Twitter, Facebook, Pastebin, Anonpaste, and Internet Relay Chats (IRC). Without doubt, Anonymous has revealed numerous cases of wrongdoing over the years (see Olson and Coleman). Despite their immediacy and relevancy, their approach has its drawbacks. For example, Anonymous has served as its own judge and jury over the years. The strength to this approach is straightforward: it expedites the process of revealing cases of wrongdoing or illegal behavior. Whereas Anonymous decidedly takes action into their own hands, other groups and individual whistleblowers are constrained by law and society. A problem with publishing information by virtue of an online intermediary, as opposed to working within the confines of the criminal justice system, is the process of verifying the authenticity of the data. Proceeding by way of the criminal justice system, legal sanctions and an established burden of proof is required for a matter in question to proceed. In this regard, lawful gatekeepers exist to ensure that cases are substantial and legitimate thus reducing the potential for damage to reputation that likely ensues, should a case be brought to a courtroom. On the other hand, it is arguable whether or not cases whereby likelihood for conviction is low will ever reach a courtroom as such cases lead to public expenditures and reduced court efficiency. Similarly, a whistleblower may be paid by a wrongdoer to keep surreptitious information secret, as such; the public may possibly endure further harm.

  Anonymous’ approach to whistleblowing is excellent in terms of allowing information to surface, but there is a lack of checks and balances in place that aid in the validation and verification. On the other hand, the fact that the group works outside of the confines on the criminal justice system is useful as cases of whistleblowing may surface more easily and regulation to correct the dishonest behaviour may instead take place. Despite this, if the cases of whistleblowing are arduous to a legal regime, it is likely that the whistleblowers will not be meet with gratitude but rather legal persecution (see Tomblin and Jenion, forthcoming). This was the case for Chelsea Manning, and other members associated with Anonymous and Wikileaks.

  Piracy and Privy: A Tentative Dispute

  Within the past year, nonetheless, Anonymous and Wikileaks have begun to break apart over ideological differences. For decades, Julian Assange has asserted that information should be “free and accessible to all.” This line of thought resonates among members of Anonymous and is one aspect of the community in which most are in agreement. In October of 2012, WikiLeaks went against their own statement of belief when they introduced a paywall that prevented the public from accessing any of the site’s documents unless a donation was made. The decision has caused an incredible upset among some whistleblowers and Anons who feel that they “cannot support anymore what WikiLeaks has become” (Kravets 2012, n.p.). Consequently, Anonymous feels that WikiLeaks betrayed them, especially after coming to their aid in December of 2010 when MasterCard, Visa and PayPal barred the public from making donations. Adding further insult to injury, fourteen members of Anony
mous have been indicted and are face fifteen years in prison for online protests defending Wikileaks and Jeremy Hammond. Hammond faces twenty years for allegedly supplying the Strategic Forecasting, Inc’s confidential Global Intelligence Files relating to the U.S. presidential election. This example is demonstrative of how ideology can cause clashes between not only a wrongdoer and a whistleblower, but also among whistleblowers themselves as a result of opposing approaches. In order to combat WikiLeaks, Anonymous has started “Operation TYLER.” Anonymous claims that TYLER is “a massively distributed and decentralized Wikipedia-style P2P cipherspace structure impregnable to censorship. TYLER will improve where WikiLeaks could not. In other words TYLER will be WikiLeaks on steroids” (Kovacs 2012, n.p.). In terms of WikiLeaks’ decision to introduce a paywall forcing donations, it is apparent that the decision was made due to Julian Assange’s ongoing court battles with the Swedish government. Assange is facing questioning in Sweden over alleged sexual assault allegations and has sought political asylum inside of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since the summer of 2012. It is hypothesized that the sexual assault case has been conjured by the government in attempt to silence his whistleblowing efforts. Furthermore, Assange fears extradition to the United States is possible for WikiLeaks-related offences as he claims; “secret U.S. military documents indicate his life is at risk if he is handed over to the U.S” (Gill, 2012, n.p.).

  From a critical perspective, it is indicative that the U.S. has been steering towards greater secrecy than any other period in history. Instead of a system build around openness and transparency, we have a system of opacity and seclusion. Whistleblowers are facing a war not only among themselves, but also among those whom they reveal dishonest and illegal behaviour against. One of the most alarming pieces of legislation against whistleblowers in contemporary society is the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA). It is hypothesized that NDAA will prevent some whistleblowers from coming forth and disclosing information and data that is vital to the public good as the U.S. government is now able to indefinitely detain citizens, journalists and whistleblowers. This decision is a move in the opposite direction of the False Claims Act, which rather than instilling fear among whistleblowers, it actually creates a reward system. Whistleblowers are vital to a nation when revealing surreptitious information and capricious workings of fate. If the government is unaware of corruption, it will never been fixed. Previous clauses for whistleblowers created protection and even encouraged private citizens to come forth. In contemporary society, governments appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Perhaps governments do not want to suppress corporate or internal corruption. Perhaps governments are well aware of the problems but are fearful of prosecuting individuals or corporations who ensure that the gross domestic product remains high. In any case, we are witnessing a shift in public opinion toward whistleblowers and the legitimacy around their work.

  Leaking and hacking have gained notoriety, and public empathy, in recent times. While the characteristics of what “makes a good leak” are debated, it is understood that most whistleblowers make private information known for the purpose of creating good, however defined. It is also argued that whistleblowing does directly lead to personal benefit of the individual or improved quality of the life. Edward Snowden is one such example where someone who had authorized access to privy information decided to expose public malfeasances in hopes of diverting society away from its course toward panopticism (see the chapter on Foucault for more). In June 2013, Snowden leaked secret documents outlining US and European government surveillance programs to the press that were obtained while employed as a contactor for Booz Allen Hamilton, a technology-consulting firm. In particular, the disclosure details the National Security Agency’s PRISM program that collects all “telephony metadata” between the United States and abroad by capturing “session identifying information…trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call” (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 2013, 2). Although the NSA outlines that the program “does not include the substantive content of any communication,” (ibid) it should be noted however that “as few as four spatio-temporal points taken at random is enough to uniquely characterize 95% of the traces” in a fifteen-month study on human mobility data (Montjoye et al. 2013, n.p.). In response to the leak, the US government has pursued Snowden for making public the realities of the digital panopticon in which we live. As a consequence, Snowden took flight toward Europe as a result of a lack for proper American whistleblower protection and is currently seeking asylum at the time of this publication.

  Conclusion

  The severity in state responses to whistleblowers has been increasingly hazardous over the years. Generally, the ideas surrounding unauthorized disclosure of information pull people in opposite directions. The evolution of legal history in Canada and the United States highlight how specific legislative nodes have encouraged or restricted efforts to make private information public. As technology and state-corporate crime continue apace, it is certain that there will be a greater need for whistleblower protection in order to elicit change and to construct transparency within society. With diverse communities at the forefront of shaping a new electronic frontier, it is hypothesized that communal whistleblowing efforts will increase in number and scope. After all, it is only through openness and transparency from the state that we will be able to move from an Age of Information to an Age of Discussion.

  Chapter 6

  Against the Online Enclosures: For a Cyber Commonism

  Some anarchists and libertarian Marxists have offered analyses arguing that the growing application of property rights to knowledge and creativity, and the use of state surveillance and punishment to secure that property, is in fact a new enclosure movement, similar to the enclosures of common land during the period of capitalism’s early emergence from feudalism. Indeed it might be suggested further that an increasingly vigorous application of the language of property rights to knowledge and creativity, and extensions of state surveillance, represents an enclosure of the mind.

  If the imposition of property regimes on knowledge and creativity constitutes what might be viewed as a second enclosure movement, then one might ask, what is emerging as the equivalent of the Diggers or Ranters who stood against the first enclosures? Against more pessimistic accounts of the new enclosures, social theorists John Clippinger and David Bollier (2005) suggest that the growing global movements for free software herald the beginnings of a renaissance of the commons. The anarchists of TAO Communications as well as Anonymous and Lulzsec provide ongoing examples of what the new Diggers or Ranters might look like. At the same time current, and proposed, international trade policies as well as security programs such as NSA pose tangible threats to the future of the knowledge commons, cyber collaboration, and mutual aid.

  An important aspect of the knowledge commons is that many participants in the various collectivities are workers in a variety of institutions. This was a key realization that motivated the practice of TAO organizers, as is explored in the final chapter. While so-called computer “geeks” (well-educated youth from middle class backgrounds) do play a significant art in the networks, they are not even the majority of participants (Cleaver 1992).

  Some theorists (see Dyer-Witheford 2010) use the term commonism to describe the current impulse against enclosure. The notion of commonism speaks to the desire for (and the reality of) collective ownership and collaborative labor without invoking the failed experiments of Soviet-style Communism (or Leninism).